FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[bigpat]

^^ doesn't lowering the front wing just improve the overall air flow and ground effects of the car? I don't think the direct benefit is increased downforce at the front... although the clearly photographed nose dip would change the angle of the wing and therefore also increase the downforce.

Lowering the front wings adds a fair chunk of downforce to the front. Remember when they lifted the front wings 50mm in '05, understeer was what most teams had to work on minimising.

As you lower the wing closer to the ground, the air underneath is forced to travel faster through the smaller space. Reduce the pressure, increase the downforce.

Of course, too low, and you can stall the wing, and you make it more pitch sensitive.

The knock on, effect is that with a more efficient wings, you don't have to ran extreme flap angles, for less drag. Not working the air as hard, makes its passage rearward a little easier to manage, and not as critical to the overall aero picture.

I would say, that the flexi wing is an important consideration in setup of the Red Bull, and was an integral part of the development of the car. If it were outlawed, the aero set up of the car would take a fair readjustment I would think.

After how much comment this thread has generated, I think there will be many people sitting really close to the TV screen this weekend......

[spankyham]

I Did mention in an earlier post 2 possible ways to get the RB flex. Materials that bend a little or, there is some newish materials which can have 2 positions they will return to. I think this is less likely but I guess it's possible. On my phone now so can't hunt the reference, will try after I get to KL.

The way it would work is you apply an electrical current to wires and they would shape themselves to the slightly nose down position.

I still think this is very unlikely as I think the bendy parts makes more sense and I think you can get the small amount of bend from each part that will yield enough total bend to cover what we see

[spankyham]

The thing I find most amusing about this is the hypocrisy involved. Many of the people wanting the FIA to do something about a wing that is illegal, despite passing all the tests, are the same people who complained about the FIA's actions against Michelin's tyres which were illegal, but passed all of the tests..

To be honest what I find hypocritical is that the FiA acted so fast in 2006 against flexing wings when no car failed any test, based on pictures and video but they take no action on this.

[racechick]

The thing I find most amusing about this is the hypocrisy involved. Many of the people wanting the FIA to do something about a wing that is illegal, despite passing all the tests, are the same people who complained about the FIA's actions against Michelin's tyres which were illegal, but passed all of the tests..

To be honest what I find hypocritical is that the FiA acted so fast in 2006 against flexing wings when no car failed any test, based on pictures and video but they take no action on this.

Well that just about sums up the FIA. Why break the habit of a lifetime.

[Denthúl]

The thing I find most amusing about this is the hypocrisy involved. Many of the people wanting the FIA to do something about a wing that is illegal, despite passing all the tests, are the same people who complained about the FIA's actions against Michelin's tyres which were illegal, but passed all of the tests..

To be honest what I find hypocritical is that the FiA acted so fast in 2006 against flexing wings when no car failed any test, based on pictures and video but they take no action on this.

Oh, I agree, my point was purely directed at certain groups of fans.

[Robert12010]

The thing I find most amusing about this is the hypocrisy involved. Many of the people wanting the FIA to do something about a wing that is illegal, despite passing all the tests, are the same people who complained about the FIA's actions against Michelin's tyres which were illegal, but passed all of the tests..

To be honest what I find hypocritical is that the FiA acted so fast in 2006 against flexing wings when no car failed any test, based on pictures and video but they take no action on this.

Well that just about sums up the FIA. Why break the habit of a lifetime.

[bud]

The thing I find most amusing about this is the hypocrisy involved. Many of the people wanting the FIA to do something about a wing that is illegal, despite passing all the tests, are the same people who complained about the FIA's actions against Michelin's tyres which were illegal, but passed all of the tests..

To be honest what I find hypocritical is that the FiA acted so fast in 2006 against flexing wings when no car failed any test, based on pictures and video but they take no action on this.

Oh, I agree, my point was purely directed at certain groups of fans.

Which group would that be?

[Hammer278]

It certainly wouldn't be Red bull fans since Redbull didn't have fans in 2006.

[Denthúl]

The thing I find most amusing about this is the hypocrisy involved. Many of the people wanting the FIA to do something about a wing that is illegal, despite passing all the tests, are the same people who complained about the FIA's actions against Michelin's tyres which were illegal, but passed all of the tests..

To be honest what I find hypocritical is that the FiA acted so fast in 2006 against flexing wings when no car failed any test, based on pictures and video but they take no action on this.

Oh, I agree, my point was purely directed at certain groups of fans.

Which group would that be?

The one mentioned in the post that spankyham responded to...

[What's Burning?]

I Did mention in an earlier post 2 possible ways to get the RB flex. Materials that bend a little or, there is some newish materials which can have 2 positions they will return to. I think this is less likely but I guess it's possible. On my phone now so can't hunt the reference, will try after I get to KL.

The way it would work is you apply an electrical current to wires and they would shape themselves to the slightly nose down position.

I still think this is very unlikely as I think the bendy parts makes more sense and I think you can get the small amount of bend from each part that will yield enough total bend to cover what we see

It looks like what... 2, maybe 3 degrees? Yeah small so that's why I think that it's flexing of material. Whatever it is, the reason we're still talking about it nearly a year into its introduction is that it hasn't been effectively copied by any other team.

I keep coming back to the only potential two outcomes, but the FIA has given absolutely no indication that they're investigating it with anything other that the standard current battery of tests.

RB better get pole this weekend by *only* 3 or 4 tenths.

[nish2280]

Horner explains it:
Autosport- By Jonathan Noble

Red Bull Racing team principal Christian Horner thinks it's time rival McLaren gets a grip on 'simple mathematics' and stops complaining about front wing flexing of the RB7, amid renewed controversy about bending bodywork in Formula 1.

Although accusations that Red Bull Racing's front wing is flexing at high loads to help improve downforce have been around since the middle of last year, the FIA has never found anything wrong with the designs of Red Bull's cars either last year or this.

But that has not stopped fresh intrigue about what the nose of the Red Bull Racing car is doing at high speed - and McLaren's Jenson Button and Lewis Hamilton both raised questions about what the reigning world champions are up to in Malaysia.

Button said in the official FIA press conference in Malaysia on Thursday: "I know a few people that I have spoken to say it flexes more than what they expect is correct, but I haven't really spent much time looking at it."

Horner, who has repeatedly insisted that his team's car has always complied with the regulations, appeared frustrated on Thursday however when it was mentioned that McLaren's drivers have again cast doubt on the team's front wing design.

Grabbing a notebook from a table of reporters to help display why it appears from photographs that the front wing of the RB7 appears closer to the ground than other cars, Horner said: "Right, shall I explain it in very basic words how it works...

"McLaren have developed a car that has a very low rear ride height, and therefore a low front wing for them doesn't work. We run quite a high rake angle in our car, so inevitably when the rear of the car is higher, the front of the car is going to be lower to the ground.

"It is obvious science, and therefore our wing complies fully with the regulations. It will look lower to the ground because the rake in our car is higher. It is simple mathematics."

Horner said that it was not up to McLaren to decide whether or not Red Bull Racing was running a legal design - as that was a matter only for the FIA.

"We take it is a compliment to be honest as you," he said about the return of talk about his team's car design.

"I think our front wing has been tested more than any other in the pit lane and it complies with the regulations, and that is what we have to do. We don't have to pass a McLaren test, we have to pass an FIA one - and it complies fully with that.

"They [McLaren] have developed a car that is effectively a different philosophy to ours and so the benefit that we see from the front wing is different to the one that they would see from the front wing. That is the basis behind it fundamentally."

World champion Sebastian Vettel was also unmoved by the fresh talk about the front wing design - as he thought the issue had been laid to rest in 2010.

"To be honest, I didn't read a lot about that [the wing] in the last one and a half weeks, but when I heard that, I first checked the date and whether we were talking about 2010 or 2011," he explained, before cheekily making a reference to suggestions last year that Red Bull Racing had even been running an illegal ride-height control mechanism.

"I was a bit confused because I thought we had left that one behind, so I'm just looking forward to the ride height lever for qualifying! What do you want me to say? I haven't got much to say, to be honest. We run the car as we run the car, we had a good weekend in Melbourne and we focus on what's going on."

Looks like they fooled all of us! (and their rivals)

[bud]

Interesting for him to give away their secret though. And to suggest the rest of the grid doesn't know simple mathematics is humourous Could be blowing a smoke screen or could explain why they use the pull rod rear end, having a higher rear to the front would mean less rear end traction but a pull rod might help get traction with the higher rear.

[stonemonkey]

Interesting for him to give away their secret though. And to suggest the rest of the grid doesn't know simple mathematics is humourous Could be blowing a smoke screen or could explain why they use the pull rod rear end, having a higher rear to the front would mean less rear end traction but a pull rod might help get traction with the higher rear.

If that's the case then DD was along the right lines, the pull rod suspension on the rear lowers the CoG so may allow for a higher rear end.
It doesn't account for the movement seen from the onboard camera though and you'd need to raise the rear by about 3 times as much as you want the nose to drop. And doesn't explain how they're getting away with the endplates scraping the ground and bridging the gap between the sprung part of the car and the ground.

[f1ea]

If that's the case then DD was along the right lines, the pull rod suspension on the rear lowers the CoG so may allow for a higher rear end.
It doesn't account for the movement seen from the onboard camera though and you'd need to raise the rear by about 3 times as much as you want the nose to drop. And doesn't explain how they're getting away with the endplates scraping the ground and bridging the gap between the sprung part of the car and the ground.

even with the higher rear, Horner still hasnt explained how come their wing sometimes rides normally... and sometimes scratching the floor.....

its a start though, and gives a little light as to how come not everyone has been able to get one of those magic wings for themselves.

[What's Burning?]

Now that's a bullsh!t explanations if ever there was one. I guess he'd like everyone to look at his notebook instead of at the photographic and video evidence.

Let me see... so the wing goes DOWN when the car is at speed.... from his explanation the wing should be going down while they're under braking... you know cause the RB rear is so high. But wait, I see the wing actually come UP during braking.

I guess Newey is as much of a magician as everyone says he is because his aero designs can alter the laws of physics.